While technologies of evaluating performance between a client and a server have conventionally been disclosed (see, e.g., Japanese Laid-Open Patent Publication Nos. 2003-8648 and H9-62601), there is demand for performance evaluation test technology to verify a backup server quickly and accurately at the time of system transition, etc. Conventionally, with respect to such performance evaluation technology, processing such as the following is performed.
FIG. 11 is an explanatory diagram of one example of conventional relative performance evaluation processing of a main server and a backup server. FIG. 11 assumes that a main server A and a test terminal C are located in Osaka, while a backup server B is located in Tokyo. The main server A is, for example, an in-use computer currently operating in a system. The backup server B is a computer to which the main server A is scheduled to transition. In this case, in executing a test using an identical pattern (a packet and the corresponding response packet), a test conductor causes a packet captured by the test terminal C from the main server A to pass to the backup server B with the same sequence pattern as that of the main server A.
FIG. 12 is an explanatory diagram of another example of conventional relative performance evaluation processing of a main server and a backup server. FIG. 12 assumes that the main server A is located in Osaka, that the backup server B is located in Tokyo, and that the test terminal C is located in both Osaka and Tokyo. In this case, the test conductor executes packet communication between the test terminal C and the main server A in Osaka as well as packet communication between the test terminal C and the backup server B in Tokyo at a same time interval as that of the main server A, resulting in execution of the relative performance evaluation of the main server A and the backup server B.
In the example of FIG. 11, however, since the main server A and the backup server B are located in different places, the difference in round trip time (RTT) between the main server A and the backup server B (positively correlated with distance) affects the processing interval (processing load) of the main server A and the backup server B. That is to say, since the interval for transmitting and receiving the packet with respect to the backup server B is larger than that for the main server A, a problem arises in that the performance evaluation cannot be made for the same load, resulting in a drop in the quality of the performance evaluation.
On the other hand, in the example of FIG. 12, to conduct the test for the same load, the test conductor captures a packet sequence with respect to the main server A and goes to the location of the backup server B (Tokyo). Then, based on the captured data, a packet is sent out with the same sequence. Thus, a problem arises in that the labor involved with traveling to the site, etc. increases the burden placed on the test conductor.